HKSAR v. Lam Kim Ming
Read the full judgment text of HCMA 189/1998 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 17 April 1998.
1. The Defendant pleaded guilty before Mr Glass sitting in the Western Magistracy on the 22nd January 1998, to a count of burglary of commercial premises. The charge was that the Defendant entered on the 10th November 1997 the Wellcome Supermarket at 66 Bonham Road, Central, Hong Kong together with one NG Kai-hong as a trespasser with intent to steal. The Defendant pleaded guilty to the charge and admitted the brief facts put forward by the prosecution. The basic facts admitted were that the Def
|
HCMA000189/1998 HCMA189/98 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO. 189 OF 1998
------------------- Coram: Mr Recorder Kotewall, S.C. in Court Date of Hearing: 17 April 1998 Date of Judgment: 17 April 1998 ---------------------- J U D G M E N T ---------------------- 1. The Defendant pleaded guilty before Mr Glass sitting in the Western Magistracy on the 22nd January 1998, to a count of burglary of commercial premises. The charge was that the Defendant entered on the 10th November 1997 the Wellcome Supermarket at 66 Bonham Road, Central, Hong Kong together with one NG Kai-hong as a trespasser with intent to steal. The Defendant pleaded guilty to the charge and admitted the brief facts put forward by the prosecution. The basic facts admitted were that the Defendant and another man were caught by the police on the 10th November 1997 during the mid-morning in the act of wheeling a trolley loaded with four boxes out of a side door of the Wellcome Supermarket. The boxes contained bottles of shampoo, baby bath and toothpaste, valued together at about $2,700. 2. The Defendant has a criminal record of 14 previous convictions with eight of them relating to theft and one for going equipped to steal. 3. The learned magistrate considered the background report. He took into account the Defendant's plea of guilty and sentenced him to 20 months' imprisonment on the charge and it is against this sentence the Defendant now appeals. 4. The magistrate took as a starting point 2 1/2 years' imprisonment. This is fully justified on the authority of R v Tang Ping, Crim App No. 93 of 1990 which was confirmed in R v Wong Man, Crim App 372/1992B and Attorney General v Lui Kam Chi, A.R. No. 1 of 1993. The magistrate then gave the Defendant the usual one third discount for his guilty plea and sentenced him to 20 months' imprisonment as he could not find other mitigating factors to reduce the sentence further. He considered whether the sentence should be suspended but was unable to find any reason for doing so. 5. It seems to me that the magistrate's approach cannot be faulted. The oral submissions of the Defendant did not add very much. In the circumstances, his appeal against sentence is dismissed. Representation: Miss L. Ho, S.G.C. for Director of Public Prosecutions. Appellant in person.
|